Times Continues Abetting ST Car Tab Tax Mendacity

The July 27^th Seattle Times, Traffic Lab, front page article “Car-tab initiative could cost region $4B” typifies its abetting Sound Transit’s mendacious approach to car tab taxes.  First, the car tab tax cut will not cost residents anything.   Its major impact would be a $328 million a year cut in funding for Sound Transit.  It’s not clear what if any impact it would have on vehicle sales taxes or other fees in other districts.

What is clear is Sound Transit “misled” voters with a 7/08/16 post claiming “An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed.”  Yet their response to objections to the higher taxes in an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett”, was  “During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes.”

The Times continued abiding Sound Transit’s lying about what car tab taxes would cost and then lying about lying. They’ve abided Sound Transit using legislation enabling them to increase taxes $1 billion a year for 15 years to, according to Sound Transit’s 2019 budget, $64 billion in tax revenue between 2017 and 2041.  And the $54 billion cost has increased to $96 billion in the 2019 budget.

The ”$6.5 billion “lost” out of the $64 billion in taxes they anticipated in the 2019 budget over the next two decades if Sound Transit is forced to refinance the bonds is hardly catastrophic.  A Joel Connelly June 8^th, 2017 Seattle PI article included the following:

 A survey by Moore Information, the venerable Portland-based polling firm with Republican and business clients, shows that ST3 would get only 37 percent support were voters given a do-over.

Thus it’s fair to say there would have been no ST3 funding package if Sound Transit had been honest with voters.   Again it’s hardly catastrophic.  The Seattle Times should not continue abiding Sound Transit car tab tax mendacity or lament residents no longer being forced to pay a car-tab tax based on  inflated valuations. 

Bellevue Council Should Drop East Main Station

The July 19 Bellevue Reporter article “City takes steps toward transit oriented development” typifies a decade of Bellevue Council malfeasance; wrong doing or misconduct especially by public official.  There would have been no East Link without Bellevue council abetment.  This blog started because the council ignored three years of personal appearances and emails objecting to their support for East Link.  

They detailed how East Link benefits in the 2008 ST DEIS were shear fantasy and urged the council to disallow the permits Sound Transit needed.   That East Link’s half of Central Link routed through the DSTT would never have the transit capacity needed to reduce I-90 Bridge congestion.   That East Links confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway precluded two-way BRT that would have had ten times light rail capacity at I/10^th the cost.  That the FHWA concluded the bridge center roadway was still needed for vehicles with the added outer roadway lanes.  Thus it was only a question of when commuters will face gridlock on the outer bridge roadways.

Posts on the blog detailed how the council rewrote the land use code, allowing Sound Transit to devastate the route into Bellevue.  Rather than forcing Sound Transit to tunnel into the city, as they did to Northgate, they paid them extra  to tunnel under the city.  They allowed Sound Transit to make a mockery of environmental law claiming light rail noise would have no impact on Mercer Slough Park despite agreeing to spend millions protecting property across a major roadway.    

The council allowed Sound Transit to ignore a Memorandum of Understanding to provide replacement parking when they closed down the South Bellevue and Overlake P&R lots for East Link, ending access to transit for many.   They supported Sound Transit 3 despite the fact its passage resulted in residents forced to pay hundreds if not thousands for Prop 1 extensions that will do nothing to reduce area congestion.  Clearly Bellevue council support has already played a major role in enabling an East Link light rail system that should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway or devastate the route into Bellevue.  

The council describes the East Main area “transit oriented development” as a way “to take advantage of the new transportation system”.  It will provide the area with “the vision to promote redesigned streets and open spaces that create a pedestrian oriented streetscape”.   The reality is the East Main Station was likely at the behest of the Bellevue council.  Very few commuters live within walking distance of the station.  It makes little sense to spend millions for a P&R when very few commuters will endure the hassle of driving there to get on a light rail train to Seattle.


Very few of Sound Transits East Link riders will live within walking distance of the light rail stations.  They've estimated  40,000 of the projected 50,000 will come from their Integrated Transit System plan to replace all cross-lake bus routes.  Yet even Sound Transit was likely reluctant to spend millions adding another stop with so little access.   The Bellevue council’s East Main area transit oriented development reflects a commitment to boost boardings at the station.   Presumably resulting in Sound Transit predicting 2500 daily boardings at the East Main station.

The article reports, “The council was very much on board with really recreating this neighborhood and taking advantage in the public investment in light rail”. They’ve apparently adopted a comprehensive plan to use the land use code to force the Red Lion Hotel, Hilton Hotel, the Bellevue Club, Radiant Logistics, Citadel Church, and Savers to relocate. 

It’s not clear how they could use the land use code to force businesses to move to allow residential development, or how much they expect to spend to force them to move.  Also, how many light rail riders do they expect to attract with the  “residential development envisioned for the area”?   The council attempts to boost support claiming  “affordable housing is part of the councils vision”.

The bottom line is the Bellevue residents have already had their city devastated by light rail.  Their taxes have increased by hundreds if not thousands to fund a light rail extensions they'll rarely if ever use.  Now they’ll be forced to fund a transit oriented development converting a thriving business district into “a residential development, with redesigned streets and open spaces that create a pedestrian oriented streetscape”.  

It’s time the Bellevue Council showed a little concern for their constituents.  Tell Sound Transit to drop East Main station.

More on Stopping Sound Transit Bus Intercept

The previous post detailed why Sound Transit’s refusal to comply with RCW 81.104.100 voids any claim they can use Chapter 81.112 to justify forcing Mercer Island to accept terminating all I-90 corridor buses on the island.  However, it’s not clear whether the city council will choose to do so.  They’ve ignored previous posts detailing Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the RCW was ample grounds for disallowing the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link. 

Sound Transit has failed to comply with the RCW for all of the Prop 1 extensions.  The Ballard and West Link extensions are the only ones that could comply with the requirement light rail was better than the “low cost” bus alternative for high capacity transit. Their failure to comply could be grounds to force Sound Transit to divert money from the Prop 1 extensions to the Ballard and West Seattle links. 

Sound Transit compounds that failure by using light rail to replace bus routes rather than increase transit capacity into the city.  Current I-5 bus riders will be forced to transfer to light rail for the commute into and out of the city.  Replacing bus routes does little to reduce HOV lane congestion and nothing for GP congestion.  Riders added will reduce access for current Central Link commuters, ending it for much of the day with even a fraction of Sound Transit's Prop t projected ridership.  More reasons to use failure to comply with RCW if not stop Prop 1, at least slow it down.

Sound Transit’s version of the forced transfer for East Link, “Bus Intercept,” is even more egregious.  Like the Central Link extensions along I-5, it’s all about boosting light rail ridership rather than increasing transit capacity (and reducing congestion).  In this case Sound Transit is so desperate to boost East Link ridership they and King County Metro have agreed to halve the number of I-90 corridor buses in order to transfer riders on Mercer Island. Ending access to cross-lake transit for thousands of commuters. What was sold to east side residents as the “equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway” will not only increase cross lake congestion, it will increase congestion along the entire I-90 corridor.

The bottom line is East Link should have been disallowed ten years ago.  Doing so could have resulted in Sound Transit adding a fourth lane to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV.  Two-way BRT could have been implemented on bridge center roadway for a fraction of light rails cost with 10 times its capacity.  There would have been no need to close the bridge center roadway or devastate the route into Bellevue.

The Mercer Island city council should at least mitigate the East Link debacle by ending Sound Transit’s “bus intercept”.  Commuters throughout the area would benefit.

How Mercer Island Can Stop “ST Bus Intercept”

The video of the July 16^th Mercer Island City Council meeting exemplified the frustration of islanders with Sound Transit and King County Metro decision to terminate all cross lake buses on the island when East Link begins operation in 2023.  They clearly recognized the ST “Bus Intercept” would be a disaster for islands ambience. 

Yet the meeting ending with the council being told the following:

Once East Link is operational, Sound Transit will no longer provide regional bus service between Mercer Island and Seattle

ST is a regional transit authority—responsible for providing high capacity transportation system for Central Puget Sound under chapter 81.112 RCW

Mercer Island saying No will likely not stop ST from implementing a bus intercept unilaterally.  Sound Transit has statutory authority to provide regional transportation and to implement and operate high capacity transportation systems, including ST3 plans.

According to ST, the bus/rail integration is a necessary component of ST2 transportation system.  Note, operations will continue to evolve with additional station openings during implementation of ST3 system.

Sound Transit bases their authority on Chapter 81.112 RCW.  However, the Revised Code of Washington RCW 81.104.100 details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning.  RCW 81.104.00 (2) and section (b) are shown below:

(2) High capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range of high capacity transportation system options, including: Do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities.  High capacity transportation system planning shall proceed as follows:

(b) Development of options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system shall be developed. 

Sound Transit’s 2008 Draft Environment Impact Statement DEIS included a “no build” option for their East Link light rail proposal, presumably their response for a “Do nothing, low capital option”.  It included adding 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and maintaining current procedure, reversing the two center roadways for morning and afternoon commutes. 

They apparently never considered initiating permanent inbound and outbound bus rapid transit (BRT) only lanes on the center roadway.  Doing so would have provided “low capital” cross-lake capacity far exceeding light rail.

Clearly Sound Transit’s failure to consider two-way bus routes on I-90 Bridge Center roadway violates RCW 81.104.100 voiding any legal justification for Bus Intercept.

Traffic Lab STILL Doesn’t Get It

The July 9^th Seattle Times article, “Could light rail be built any faster?  It wouldn’t be easy,” is just the latest example of Traffic Lab’s failure to recognize the area’s “real” congestion problem.  It’s not the “timing” of the Prop 1 extensions, it’s their failure to reduce congestion. 

Anyone with a modicum of competence would recognize the stupidity of extending Central Link to Everett and Tacoma.  They’re all routed through a Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) that limits trains to 4 cars.  A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the DSTT stations limited capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction, a fraction of the transit capacity needed to reduce congestion.  That accommodating even that capacity at the two DSTT stations during peak commute is “problematic”.   

The billions spent on Prop 1 extensions do nothing to increase that capacity.  Yet the Traffic Lab continues to abide Sound Transit claims for daily riders.  The Sound Transit 2019 budget includes CEO Rogoff”s delusional claim 600,000 of the 700,00 daily riders in 2041 will come from the 116-mile light rail network.

Even a fraction of that ridership would end access for current Central Link riders.  University Link riders, who will begin to lose access in 2021 with Northgate extension, will lose access for much of the day with Sound Transit claims for 47,000 to 55,000 Lynnwood Links riders. 

East Link operation will halve Central Link capacity south of the International District station.  Thus, even a fraction of Sound Transit’s claims for 38,000 to 58,000 for Federal will end access during much of the day for current riders.  Clearly extensions beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way exacerbate Central Link capacity problem.

Even more absurd Sound Transit intends to use the Prop 1 extensions, not to add transit capacity, but to replace bus routes into the city. The problem being 70 to 80% of the Prop 1 riders’ only access to light rail stations will be at P&R lots.  Yet all the lots with access to light rail station are currently filled with bus riders.  Rather than add parking Sound Transit intends to force those commuters to use light rail.  Reducing the number of buses on HOV lanes will do little to reduce traffic there and nothing on GP lanes. 

East Link is a particularly egregious example since even its limited capacity exceeds the numbers of commuters within walking distance or able to park near light rail stations.  Again Sound Transit intends to boost ridership by forcing current bus riders to use East Link for the commute into and out of Seattle.  

Mercer Island objections led to Sound Transit and King County Metro agreeing to halve current bus schedules in order to terminate bus routes on island.  East Link operation will force thousands of existing transit riders and future potential transit riders to drive, inevitably grid-locking I-90 Bridge outer roadways and entire I-90 corridor.  

                                                                                                                Thus the only “benefit” of Sound Transit’s light rail spine will be those having access to light rail stations, mostly bus riders, will have more reliable commutes into the city.  (Something the Seattle Times conceded in a Nov 4^th 2016 edition.)

However the entire area will pay for the extensions, the additional light rail cars required, and the operating costs with the extensions.  Any attempt to expedite Prop 1 extensions simple hastens lack of access for current Central Link riders, need for more expensive light rail cars, and huge subsidies to cover their operating costs, 

By contrast the combination of the West Link through a 2^nd tunnel to a Ballard Link would dramatically increase capacity into downtown Seattle.  While Sound Transit’s projected 110,000 to 136,000 ridership in the tunnel is likely “optimistic”, any riders would increase transit capacity into downtown.  Ridership benefits from the fact 70-80 % of the link riders would live within walking distance of light rail stations, minimizing the need for expensive P&R lots.

The bottom line is there would be no ST3 without Seattle’s 70% approval. The promised West Link and Ballard Link undoubtedly played a major role in that approval. The costs for the 12 mile route in the ST3 funding proposal is only ~ $6 Billion in 2014 dollars. Operating costs with the shorter routes would be a fraction of those for the light rail spine. They need to be expedited not delayed haggling over routes or additional costs.  Any resulting delays in Central Link extensions should be welcomed. 

Sound Transit didn’t require any additional funds for their decision to tunnel all the way to the Northgate station.  They need to tunnel to West Seattle and consider doing so to Ballard.   The Traffic Lab should “Get It” and advocate for doing so.

Legislators Ignore Constituents’ Concern

The July 5^th Bellevue Reporter article “State lawmakers discuss 2019 session” exemplifies another year of the area’s legislator’s decade-long failure to address their constituent’s biggest concern.  It’s not as the article suggests, the state’s budget, the need to fully fund the McCleary decision, or the increase in the B&O tax or graduated real state excise tax.  It’s congestion on the area’s roadways.  67% of those in a recent Bellevue survey listed it as their top concern, nearly four times the 17% concerned about the cost of housing.   Residents throughout the east side would likely concur. 

East side commuters are some of the biggest losers from the legislator’s failure to ever recognize the adverse affects of routing Prop 1 light rail extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  There would have been no East Link if legislators had demanded Sound Transit be audited.   Even a cursory audit would have concluded a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, limited DSTT capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  That east side cross-lake commuter’s share of that capacity would never be sufficient to make up for the loss of the I-90 bridge center roadway from East Link. 

Thus there was never any justification for allowing Sound Transit to confiscate the bridge center roadway or devastate the route through Bellevue, ending the city’s persona as the city in the park.   An audit would have confirmed east side cross-lake commuter’s share of DSTT capacity was a fraction of what they could have added 10 years sooner with two-way BRT on bridge center roadway. 

Even worse, Sound Transit, rather than using East Link to add I-90 Bridge capacity, plans to use it to end cross-lake bus routes.   It shouldn’t take an audit for lawmakers to recognize I-90 Bridge congestion is not due to too many buses.   Sound Transit exacerbates the problem by agreeing to a Mercer City Council demand they halve current I-90 corridor bus routes in order to terminate buses there.  Those no longer able to ride buses will be forced to drive, adding to the inevitable gridlock, not only on I-90 Bridge outer roadways,on the entire I-90 corridor.  

I-90 commuters aren’t the only losers from the failure to audit.  An audit would have also shown Prop I extensions routed through the DSTT would not have the capacity needed to justify spending billions on Central Link extensions along I-5.   Especially since the extensions do nothing to increase DSTT capacity so any riders added will reduce access for current riders.   

Again, rather than using light rail to add transit capacity into the city the extensions will be used to replace existing bus routes, doing nothing to reduce I-5 congestion.   Current Central Link commuters will lose and residents throughout the area will continue to be forced to pay for fatally flawed Prop 1 extensions.

Those payments however pale in comparison to what they’ll have to pay for the 2015 legislation enabling Sound Transit 3.   Most of which will be the result of the legislators continuing to allow Sound Transit to base car tab taxes on inflated car values.   Sound Transit CEO Rogoff used the ST3 approval for his 2019 budget plan to spend $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 to implement “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions.  

Any legislator with a modicum of concern for constituents would have concluded Rogoff’s 2019 budget was grounds for an audit.  Most of the $96 billion was from $64 billion in taxes, dwarfing the $1 billion a year for 15 years the legislation enabled.  Rogoff’s budget was far more about creating the “most ambitious transit system expansion in the country” than in reducing the area’s congestion. 

Any legislator with a modicum of transportation competence would have concluded his light rail ridership claim in the budget was delusional.   That he demonstrated even more incompetence with the budget proposal to continue Sound Transit’s decade of refusing to increase bus transit capacity for the next 20 years.   The Sound Transit Board,who should have fired him, renewed his contract for the next three years with a hefty raise.  Yet it didn’t even generate the need for an audit.

Again, there would have been no Prop 1 extensions if the legislators had required Sound Transit be audited.  East Link is just the most egregious example of that failure.  The July 5^th Bellevue Reporter article is just the latest example of that failure. 

Seattle Times Bellevue City Council Endorsements

The Seattle Times June 27^th and June 28^th endorsements of Bellevue City Council candidates are far more about urging support for candidates who espouse policies the Times favors than policies of concern to Bellevue residents.  For years surveys have shown traffic congestion has been a major concern with the latest showing 67% listed it as their top concern, nearly 4 times the 17% concerned about the cost of housing.

Yet, like the Seattle Times, the council has spent a decade supporting an East Link light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion in the city and will increase I-90 Bridge congestion.  There was never any need for Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway or to create this monstrosity of light rail through the city, a permanent scar on Bellevue’s persona as the city in the park.  

The council even agreed to a huge maintenance facility making the absurd claim it will be a magnet for “Transit Oriented Development”.  They supported Sound Transit 3 resulting in east side residents being forced to pay hundreds If not thousands annually, primarily on a light rail spine between Everett and Tacoma.

Candidates Stokes and Roberson have been instrumental in allowing this debacle.  It’s not clear whether Candidates Zahn and Barksdale are Sound Transit supporters but the Times endorsements suggest they are.

None of the endorsed candidates have demonstrated concern about congestion on local roads.  For years, north/south roads east of I-405 have been congested for much of the day with 40,000 Microsoft employees on route to and from their Redmond campus.  Yet no attempt has been made to limit parking at the campus, forcing Microsoft to greatly expand their Connector shuttle service despite plans to add thousands more employees.  

The council also needs to advocate for a similar employer-provided shuttle service into downtown Bellevue, especially with Amazon plans to add thousands more employees in city. Instead their plans to implement bike-only lanes will only exacerbate the problem.

However, the most odious aspect of the Seattle Times council endorsements is they all are presumably advocating for a year round homeless shelter for men; what will undoubtedly be used as a “relief valve” for Seattle’s problem.   It’s one thing to provide a temporary shelter for families, it’s another to do so for single men. 

It’s likely many of the men seeking shelter have serious drug or mental health issues.  Solving their problems is far more difficult than providing acceptable housing.  When will they leave and where will they go? The council candidates need to address the issue prior to making any shelter plans.  

Again, it's just another example Bellevue voters, like those throughout the area, need to be wary of not only Seattle Times candidate endorsements, but of many of their advocacies.